IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae12/126501.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Impacts of Huanglongbing Disease in São Paulo State

Author

Listed:
  • Miranda, Silvia Helena Galvao de
  • Adami, Andreia Cristina de Oliveira
  • Bassanezi, Renato B.

Abstract

The main objective of this paper is to estimate the potential impacts of the increasing dissemination of the Huanglongbing (HLB) disease in citrus orchards in São Paulo State, Brazil, which is the largest world producer of orange juice and to discuss the importance of phytosanitary programs in order to control the disease’s spreading in the territory. The methodology applied to evaluate the impacts and to discuss the importance of phytossanitary programs is the Cost-Benefit Analysis approach. A model has been used to project the orchard size and production along 20 years as well as to estimate the costs of production and disease control for the same period. Some assumptions have been made about the disease spread, prices and other variables for two basic scenarios: one considering the presence of an official phytosanitary program to eradicate and control the HLB, jointly implemented by Fundecitrus, which is a private institution; and the second one without the official program. The revenues for each scenario have been estimated and accumulated for 20 years, likewise the costs. The losses caused by the HLB considered to evaluate the avoided losses in the scenarios comprised basically those related to production reduction (yield) and reduction of the orchards’ size. Cost-benefit ratios have been calculated for both scenarios. Regarding the CBA results for economic impacts, we found that for each Real invested by government and by Fundecitrus in the phytosanitary program, there is an avoided loss that amounts to R$ 57.3, which consists on a very high benefit-cost ratio for this kind of investment. When the additional costs imposed to farmers to manage the HLB is computed in the CBA analysis, the ratio falls to 4.6, however it is still higher than one, indicating that this phytosanitary “investment” is recommendable. Despite criticisms on this approach and the assumptions made, it provides elements to decision making, for both public and private actors and it allows having some approximation of impacts. Estimating those impacts is relevant to prove policy makers that phytosanitary policy has a high net benefit for society. It is worth-mentioning that other economic and social losses might be incorporated in the analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Miranda, Silvia Helena Galvao de & Adami, Andreia Cristina de Oliveira & Bassanezi, Renato B., 2012. "Economic Impacts of Huanglongbing Disease in São Paulo State," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126501, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae12:126501
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.126501
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/126501/files/Miranda_etal2012_final.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.126501?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Calvin, Linda & Krissoff, Barry, 1998. "Technical Barriers To Trade: A Case Study Of Phytosanitary Barriers And U.S. - Japanese Apple Trade," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(2), pages 1-16, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. de Sousa, Elaine P. de & de Miranda, Silvia H.G., 2015. "Regulatory Impact Analysis in Brazil: theoretical approach and applications in policies for agriculture defense," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212060, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ker, Alan P., 2000. "Modeling Technical Trade Barriers Under Uncertainty," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(1), pages 1-23, July.
    2. Maria Cipollina & Luca Salvatici, 2008. "Measuring Protection: Mission Impossible?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 577-616, July.
    3. Julie A. Caswell, 2000. "An evaluation of risk analysis as applied to agricultural biotechnology (with a case study of gmo labeling)," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 115-123.
    4. Keiichiro Honda, 2012. "Tariff equivalent of Japanese sanitary and phytosanitary: Econometric estimation of protocol for U.S.-Japanese apple trade," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(2), pages 1226-1237.
    5. Qianhui GAO & Shoichi ITO & Hisamitsu SAITO, 2018. "Measuring Japan's technical barriers to trade based on the China's fruit exports to Japan," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 64(3), pages 141-147.
    6. Jean-Christophe Bureau & Sophie Drogue & Maria Priscila Ramos, 2003. "Economic implications of the Doha development agenda for Latin America and the Caribbean: non tariff measures," Post-Print hal-02828927, HAL.
    7. Michael J. Ferrantino, 2006. "Quantifying the Trade and Economic Effects of Non-Tariff Measures," OECD Trade Policy Papers 28, OECD Publishing.
    8. Anders, Sven M. & Caswell, Julie A., 2006. "Assessing the Impact of Stricter Food Safety Standards on Trade: HACCP in U.S. Seafood Trade with the Developing World," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21338, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Maskus, Keith E. & Wilson, John S. & Tsunehiro Otsuki, 2000. "Quantifying the impact of technical barriers to trade : a framework for analysis," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2512, The World Bank.
    10. Inaba, Masaru & Nutahara, Kengo, 2009. "The role of investment wedges in the Carlstrom-Fuerst economy and business cycle accounting," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(3), pages 200-203, December.
    11. Soon, Byung Min & Thompson, Wyatt, 2016. "Measuring Non-Tariff Barriers by Combining Cointegration Tests and Simulation Models with an Application to Russian Chicken Imports," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235738, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Chengyan Yue & John Beghin & Helen H. Jensen, 2017. "Tariff Equivalent Of Technical Barriers To Trade With Imperfect Substitution And Trade Costs," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 9, pages 151-164, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. Qianhui Gao & Shoichi Ito & Kolawole Ogundari & Hisamitsu Saito, 2016. "Evaluating Welfare Effects of Rice Import Quota in Japan: Based on Measuring Non-Tariff Barriers of SBS Rice Imports," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-13, August.
    14. Drogué, Sophie & DeMaria, Federica, 2012. "Pesticide residues and trade, the apple of discord?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 641-649.
    15. Narrod, Clare A. & Malcolm, Scott A. & Kost, William E., 2000. "The Significance Of Interceptions Of Fresh Produce From Latin America And The Caribbean Into The United States," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21789, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Long Andrew G. & Kastner Justin J. & Kassatly Raymond, 2013. "Is Food Security a New Tariff? Explaining Changes in Sanitary and Phytosanitary Regulations by World Trade Organization Members," Global Economy Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 25-46, January.
    17. Federica Demaria & Sophie S. Drogue & Pasquale Lubello, 2015. "Measuring the cost of compliance: the case of French apples," Post-Print hal-02793846, HAL.
    18. Chengyan Yue & John C. Beghin, 2017. "Tariff Equivalent And Forgone Trade Effects Of Prohibitive Technical Barriers To Trade," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 8, pages 139-150, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    19. Mark J. Gibson & Qianqian Wang, 2018. "Sanitary and phytosanitary measures in Chinese agricultural exports: the role of trade intermediaries," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(27), pages 3007-3015, June.
    20. John C. Beghin & Heidi Schweizer, 2021. "Agricultural Trade Costs," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 500-530, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Agricultural and Food Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iaae12:126501. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.